rohar:pion: rohar: pion: rohar: pion: I don't see any data in the article. Just the same, tired, false arguments as before. Gun control advocates want less gun violence. Clearly less gun control hasn't worked, so why don't we try more. You want to convince me otherwise, show me some articles from peer-reviewed journals explaining how to decrease gun violence without increasing gun control laws, and I will be more than happy to advocate that method. Until then, shut up about "data," because you don't have any.

Our murder rate, nationally, has almost been cut in half over the past 20 years. There were few if any new gun control laws, many expired or were repealed:

[wmbriggs.com image 600x450]

You were saying?

[citation needed].

shiat, that was timely. Look one post up, efgeise was kind enough to post the chart supporting my assertion.

/that's gotta be somewhat embarrassing right?

You seem to fail at reading comprehension. Show me something from a peer-reviewed journal. If the chart is from such a journal, provide a citation. If you don't know what "peer-reviewed" means, I'd be happy to provide an explanation.

What!? We now need to peer review standardized metrics? No scientist on the planet would suggest such a thing. Do you have any metrics that show otherwise?

Oh, and the source is the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

You still haven't provided a citation. Could it be that a citation would undermine your argument (most likely scenario). What standardized metrics? What methodology is used? Where is the data from? You don't answer any of those questions. Science is peer-reviewed because it makes sure that all those questions must be answered from a sound perspective. You seem to be cavalierly dismissive of good scientific protocol. Therefore, nothing you post should be taken seriously.

pion:rohar: pion: rohar: pion: rohar: pion: I don't see any data in the article. Just the same, tired, false arguments as before. Gun control advocates want less gun violence. Clearly less gun control hasn't worked, so why don't we try more. You want to convince me otherwise, show me some articles from peer-reviewed journals explaining how to decrease gun violence without increasing gun control laws, and I will be more than happy to advocate that method. Until then, shut up about "data," because you don't have any.

Our murder rate, nationally, has almost been cut in half over the past 20 years. There were few if any new gun control laws, many expired or were repealed:

[wmbriggs.com image 600x450]

You were saying?

[citation needed].

shiat, that was timely. Look one post up, efgeise was kind enough to post the chart supporting my assertion.

/that's gotta be somewhat embarrassing right?

You seem to fail at reading comprehension. Show me something from a peer-reviewed journal. If the chart is from such a journal, provide a citation. If you don't know what "peer-reviewed" means, I'd be happy to provide an explanation.

What!? We now need to peer review standardized metrics? No scientist on the planet would suggest such a thing. Do you have any metrics that show otherwise?

Oh, and the source is the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

You still haven't provided a citation. Could it be that a citation would undermine your argument (most likely scenario). What standardized metrics? What methodology is used? Where is the data from? You don't answer any of those questions. Science is peer-reviewed because it makes sure that all those questions must be answered from a sound perspective. You seem to be cavalierly dismissive of good scientific protocol. Therefore, nothing you post should be taken seriously.

Uh, I pointed out a chart that someone else posted. I cited the source as the Bureau of Justice Statistics. That was kindof a citation. English a second language for you? Do you have a better source for murder rates in America? If so, cough it up, I can be reasoned with.

iq_in_binary:The Jami Turman Fan Club: Dimensio: The Jami Turman Fan Club: I have no wish to go door-to-door. Just ban the sale of the weapons, clips/magazines, and ammo, and have a buyback program. It'll take care of itself.

So you are saying that you advocate prohibiting all civilian firearm ownership?

No, just weapons with clips and magazines. Weapons where the ammo was held in the body of the gun would be legal, as would revolvers.

Right, but what you just said was NO GUNS AT ALL. Even bolt action rifles like the Mauser 98 is fed from a "clip."

What? Do you really think there are NO GUNS AT ALL that don't use a clip or magazine?

rohar:pion: rohar: pion: rohar: pion: rohar: pion: I don't see any data in the article. Just the same, tired, false arguments as before. Gun control advocates want less gun violence. Clearly less gun control hasn't worked, so why don't we try more. You want to convince me otherwise, show me some articles from peer-reviewed journals explaining how to decrease gun violence without increasing gun control laws, and I will be more than happy to advocate that method. Until then, shut up about "data," because you don't have any.

Our murder rate, nationally, has almost been cut in half over the past 20 years. There were few if any new gun control laws, many expired or were repealed:

[wmbriggs.com image 600x450]

You were saying?

[citation needed].

shiat, that was timely. Look one post up, efgeise was kind enough to post the chart supporting my assertion.

/that's gotta be somewhat embarrassing right?

You seem to fail at reading comprehension. Show me something from a peer-reviewed journal. If the chart is from such a journal, provide a citation. If you don't know what "peer-reviewed" means, I'd be happy to provide an explanation.

What!? We now need to peer review standardized metrics? No scientist on the planet would suggest such a thing. Do you have any metrics that show otherwise?

Oh, and the source is the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

You still haven't provided a citation. Could it be that a citation would undermine your argument (most likely scenario). What standardized metrics? What methodology is used? Where is the data from? You don't answer any of those questions. Science is peer-reviewed because it makes sure that all those questions must be answered from a sound perspective. You seem to be cavalierly dismissive of good scientific protocol. Therefore, nothing you post should be taken seriously.

Uh, I pointed out a chart that someone else posted. I cited the source as the Bureau of Justice Statistics. That was kindof a citation. English a s ...

That's not a citation. You don't provide a link to the study. You don't provide the title of the study. You don't provide anything to identify the study. That's what citation means. I'm not the one that needs English lessons. My guess is you've got nothing.

pion:That's not a citation. You don't provide a link to the study. You don't provide the title of the study. You don't provide anything to identify the study. That's what citation means. I'm not the one that needs English lessons. My guess is you've got nothing.

There are no studies. It's a publicly collected statistic. It's available from virtually every government agency involved with crime. They all report the same metrics.

Are you suggesting the data collection is somehow biased? To what end?

rohar:LoneWolf343: rohar: That's awesome, you found some charts. You'll also notice that homicide rates in WA are half of what they are in LA. data. I have an anecdote.

You're like those people thinks that a cold day disproves global warming.

So you can cite any gun regulation in any country on the face of the planet in the past 50 years that had any effect on murder rates?

I can't and I've combed through all of it.

You mean besides chart #1, which shows that the vast majority of gun crime is down with weapons that aren't banned by law, chart #2 which shows that America, which has abnormally lax gun laws compared to the rest of the First World, has a much higher assault death rate than other countries which tend to have harsher restrictions on gun ownership, and chart #3 that shows he region of the US which has the highest concentration of gun ownership is also the most violent . You're either blind or stupid, and you're able to know that I am responding, so that rules out blind.

So why pull out the fangs of a wolf who is protecting you? Sure they can be dangerous in the right hands, but they can also hold back the prey.

Slutter McGee

Gun fetishists are not wolves. They are yapping purse-riding toy dogs who think that merely having a gun and being able to shoot a herbivore from a couple hundred yards out makes them as big of badasses as Seal Team Six. When it comes between a fight between them and the US Military, it would be merely seconds before the real wolves bite the toy dogs in half.

Face it. Violent resistance to the state has been happened before. Usually just minor stuff like:

Yeah, that turned out swimmingly for the "true patriots," didn't it? That was a time when the two factions were fairly equally matched when it came to technology. Today? It would be a week before any kind of organized resistance was reduced to shrinking pockets of banditry. The only way that a citizenry could come close to being a "check" on the government is if we legalized the ownership of surface-to-air missile launchers.

rohar:pion: That's not a citation. You don't provide a link to the study. You don't provide the title of the study. You don't provide anything to identify the study. That's what citation means. I'm not the one that needs English lessons. My guess is you've got nothing.

There are no studies. It's a publicly collected statistic. It's available from virtually every government agency involved with crime. They all report the same metrics.

Are you suggesting the data collection is somehow biased? To what end?

I'm not saying data collection is biased. I want a link to where the graph came from, so I can evaluate what it means. Why are you so reluctant to provide that?

LoneWolf343:You mean besides chart #1, which shows that the vast majority of gun crime is down with weapons that aren't banned by law, chart #2 which shows that America, which has abnormally lax gun laws compared to the rest of the First World, has a much higher assault death rate than other countries which tend to have harsher restrictions on gun ownership, and chart #3 that shows he region of the US which has the highest concentration of gun ownership is also the most violent . You're either blind or stupid, and you're able to know that I am responding, so that rules out blind.

You're comparing disparate populations. This cannot get us closer to resolution. Again, WA has half the murder rate of LA and they have the same gun laws, obviously gun laws aren't the issue.

I answered your question. Now answer mine.

You'll excuse me, I'm tired, what was the question again? I'll gladly answer it if you remind me.

pion:rohar: pion: That's not a citation. You don't provide a link to the study. You don't provide the title of the study. You don't provide anything to identify the study. That's what citation means. I'm not the one that needs English lessons. My guess is you've got nothing.

There are no studies. It's a publicly collected statistic. It's available from virtually every government agency involved with crime. They all report the same metrics.

Are you suggesting the data collection is somehow biased? To what end?

I'm not saying data collection is biased. I want a link to where the graph came from, so I can evaluate what it means. Why are you so reluctant to provide that?

Could be because I've already done that multiple times in this thread and you're too lazy to read. Nevermind, give me a minute, I'll gladly do your homework for you if you shut the fark up with your assinine assertions.

rohar:LoneWolf343: You mean besides chart #1, which shows that the vast majority of gun crime is down with weapons that aren't banned by law, chart #2 which shows that America, which has abnormally lax gun laws compared to the rest of the First World, has a much higher assault death rate than other countries which tend to have harsher restrictions on gun ownership, and chart #3 that shows he region of the US which has the highest concentration of gun ownership is also the most violent . You're either blind or stupid, and you're able to know that I am responding, so that rules out blind.

You're comparing disparate populations. This cannot get us closer to resolution. Again, WA has half the murder rate of LA and they have the same gun laws, obviously gun laws aren't the issue.I'll restate my anecdote as if it meant anything.

FTFY

I answered your question. Now answer mine.

You'll excuse me, I'm tired, what was the question again? I'll gladly answer it if you remind me.

I'll note that looking at your chart, because I actually know how to use the find function in my browser, the sharp decline coincided with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, and the decline stopped at the beginning of the Bush administration. It also stops at 2008, so it doesn't include the rash of mass shootings that we have had recently.

LoneWolf343:rohar: LoneWolf343: You mean besides chart #1, which shows that the vast majority of gun crime is down with weapons that aren't banned by law, chart #2 which shows that America, which has abnormally lax gun laws compared to the rest of the First World, has a much higher assault death rate than other countries which tend to have harsher restrictions on gun ownership, and chart #3 that shows he region of the US which has the highest concentration of gun ownership is also the most violent . You're either blind or stupid, and you're able to know that I am responding, so that rules out blind.

You're comparing disparate populations. This cannot get us closer to resolution. Again, WA has half the murder rate of LA and they have the same gun laws, obviously gun laws aren't the issue.I'll restate my anecdote as if it meant anything.

So you'll gladly cite any singular population, on the entire face of the planet, that had the luxury of a reduced murder rate as the result of any gun control law in the past 60 years?

rohar:LoneWolf343: rohar: LoneWolf343: You mean besides chart #1, which shows that the vast majority of gun crime is down with weapons that aren't banned by law, chart #2 which shows that America, which has abnormally lax gun laws compared to the rest of the First World, has a much higher assault death rate than other countries which tend to have harsher restrictions on gun ownership, and chart #3 that shows he region of the US which has the highest concentration of gun ownership is also the most violent . You're either blind or stupid, and you're able to know that I am responding, so that rules out blind.

You're comparing disparate populations. This cannot get us closer to resolution. Again, WA has half the murder rate of LA and they have the same gun laws, obviously gun laws aren't the issue.I'll restate my anecdote as if it meant anything.

So you'll gladly cite any singular population, on the entire face of the planet, that had the luxury of a reduced murder rate as the result of any gun control law in the past 60 years?

LoneWolf343:rohar: LoneWolf343: rohar: LoneWolf343: You mean besides chart #1, which shows that the vast majority of gun crime is down with weapons that aren't banned by law, chart #2 which shows that America, which has abnormally lax gun laws compared to the rest of the First World, has a much higher assault death rate than other countries which tend to have harsher restrictions on gun ownership, and chart #3 that shows he region of the US which has the highest concentration of gun ownership is also the most violent . You're either blind or stupid, and you're able to know that I am responding, so that rules out blind.

You're comparing disparate populations. This cannot get us closer to resolution. Again, WA has half the murder rate of LA and they have the same gun laws, obviously gun laws aren't the issue.I'll restate my anecdote as if it meant anything.

So you'll gladly cite any singular population, on the entire face of the planet, that had the luxury of a reduced murder rate as the result of any gun control law in the past 60 years?

LoneWolf343: the sharp decline coincided with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994,

There you go.

Now answer my damn question.

/It's alright, I know you won't. It's just fun to watch yourself dig yourself in deeper.

The sharp decline started before the assault weapons ban AND assault weapons were a small number of the guns used in murders so the ban was inconsequential.

Now you'll gladly repeat your question so I can answer it, as I politely would, or shut the fark up.

rohar:LoneWolf343: rohar: LoneWolf343: rohar: LoneWolf343: You mean besides chart #1, which shows that the vast majority of gun crime is down with weapons that aren't banned by law, chart #2 which shows that America, which has abnormally lax gun laws compared to the rest of the First World, has a much higher assault death rate than other countries which tend to have harsher restrictions on gun ownership, and chart #3 that shows he region of the US which has the highest concentration of gun ownership is also the most violent . You're either blind or stupid, and you're able to know that I am responding, so that rules out blind.

You're comparing disparate populations. This cannot get us closer to resolution. Again, WA has half the murder rate of LA and they have the same gun laws, obviously gun laws aren't the issue.I'll restate my anecdote as if it meant anything.

So you'll gladly cite any singular population, on the entire face of the planet, that had the luxury of a reduced murder rate as the result of any gun control law in the past 60 years?

LoneWolf343: the sharp decline coincided with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994,

There you go.

Now answer my damn question.

/It's alright, I know you won't. It's just fun to watch yourself dig yourself in deeper.

The sharp decline started before the assault weapons ban AND assault weapons were a small number of the guns used in murders so the ban was inconsequential.

Now you'll gladly repeat your question so I can answer it, as I politely would, or shut the fark up.

Sorry, you can't spin your way out of this one. Your own chart proves you wrong.

LoneWolf343:rohar: LoneWolf343: rohar: LoneWolf343: rohar: LoneWolf343: You mean besides chart #1, which shows that the vast majority of gun crime is down with weapons that aren't banned by law, chart #2 which shows that America, which has abnormally lax gun laws compared to the rest of the First World, has a much higher assault death rate than other countries which tend to have harsher restrictions on gun ownership, and chart #3 that shows he region of the US which has the highest concentration of gun ownership is also the most violent . You're either blind or stupid, and you're able to know that I am responding, so that rules out blind.

You're comparing disparate populations. This cannot get us closer to resolution. Again, WA has half the murder rate of LA and they have the same gun laws, obviously gun laws aren't the issue.I'll restate my anecdote as if it meant anything.

So you'll gladly cite any singular population, on the entire face of the planet, that had the luxury of a reduced murder rate as the result of any gun control law in the past 60 years?

LoneWolf343: the sharp decline coincided with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994,

There you go.

Now answer my damn question.

/It's alright, I know you won't. It's just fun to watch yourself dig yourself in deeper.

The sharp decline started before the assault weapons ban AND assault weapons were a small number of the guns used in murders so the ban was inconsequential.

Now you'll gladly repeat your question so I can answer it, as I politely would, or shut the fark up.

Sorry, you can't spin your way out of this one. Your own chart proves you wrong.

[consciouslifenews.com image 300x186]

Uh, what does that chart suggest about assault weapons? WTF was this question I was supposed to answer? Why in hell do you continually evade direct questions?

mab1823:1. Assault weapons ban. I really don't care what excuses people have. There is zero reason for the average American to own weapons that can be converted to fully automatic or have massive magazines/clips.

*** President Perry and the Republican House/Senate will repeal it.

2. High-volume magazine ban. I realize that it's horribly inconvenient for some people to have to reload occasionally while they're target shooting...but it's entirely possible that not having these magazines around would lessen the chance that some insane idiot could spray a crowd with gunfire.

*** President Perry and the Republican House/Senate will repeal it.

3. Highly regulated and taxed ammo sales. Make purchasing ammo be much more expensive than it is now (with an exception for ammo sold and used at target ranges) to discourage the accumulation of mass-murder levels of bullets. Make ammo available in fewer places, and especially not via the internet.

*** President Perry and the Republican House/Senate will repeal it.

4. Require a rigorous yearly psychiatric evaluation as a condition of gun ownership. Deny gun licenses to individuals (and families) with history of certain mental disorders. Severe manic depressive? Sorry, you don't get a gun. You can't yell FIRE in a theater, either. It's about public safety.

*** President Perry and the Republican House/Senate will repeal it.

5. License one handgun per person at a time, with only very rare exceptions. Discourage the building of home arsenals. You want a gun for protection? Fine. You can generally only shoot one at a time anyway.

*** President Perry and the Republican House/Senate will repeal it.

6. Eliminate any and all gun show loopholes. I mean, come on.

*** President Perry and the Republican House/Senate will repeal it.

7. Require the purchase of gun insurance for every gun purchase. The premium can be based on risk factors and funds the payout of damages to anyone injured or killed by that particular firearm.

LOL. The guy got showed up by Romney, who was one of the most incompetent campaigners in recent memory. What makes you think any of the 2012 GOP Primary Loser Brigade have a presidential future?

The 1993 ban let a congenital idiot put Al Gore out to pasture. You think maybe there were 538 pissed off gun owners in Florida? 9/11, Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, Iraq, torture, etc., all thanks to a gun control bill.

Ask Bill Clinton.

Romney lost because he was a bigger gun grabber than Obama. I voted Obama.

Ted Nugent could beat a Democrat in 2016 if you pass a big gun ban. The Pubbies will probably wind up with a super-majority in the house if all your religious fantasies are passed.

He's right, a gun ban won't help. Mass killers will just use something else to kill with. The six mass killings at schools in China that happened within the last 2.5 years did not involve guns, the killers used knives or hammers. Should there be tougher restrictions or a ban on the ownership of knives and hammers?

George says all those fools are falling prey to the tendancy of Americans to credit sudden changes to technological causes.

George's explanation? Aluminum bats. I couldn't make up derp like that.

Yeah, try using something that other people aren't claiming as well if you want to make him sound uninformed. There's a reason aluminum bats aren't legal in MLB, and why people are calling for them to be banned from college and high school.

You know why? Because the hut balls travel faster and farther with an aluminum bat.

I'm sure you're sticking with the "lively balls" theory for an entirely different reason than the fact that you think it's correct. I get it, typing 'lively balls' makes me LOL, too...

well, actually you didn't. you just said i don't understand 'guns politics'.

i'm willing to concede that there is a possibility that the response to mass killing like this will include loosening restrictions on automatic weapons.

i'm willing to concede that there is a possibility that the response will include puppies with bayonets.

i'm just not willing to act like it is an item with any political will behind it, nor something that is really worth any priority right now. i'm also not willing to act like attempting to make it a priority right now wouldn't back fire horribly.

i'm sure you understand 'guns politics' in some fashion that would absolutely negate this, but you as of yet....haven't done so.

HeadLever:ilambiquated: Also we should ban lead bullets because they are a nasty pollutant.

For the most part, they have no real impact. In most hunting applications the lead slug ends up in the soil and is very inert compared to the lead based chemicals used in paints and the like. Also, this ban would be very hard to implement as many re loaders can make their own. It is very easy.

But the ban would massively reduce the amount of lead being sprayed around, even if it didn't eliminate it. Also I'm sort of doubtful about your claim that lead is inert -- it certainly oxidates easily giving Pb IV and Pb IV also changes to Pb II easily.

Here's the Straight Dope on the topic of sinkers. 2,500 metric tons of sinkers are produced every year. That's got to be going somewhere.

well, actually you didn't. you just said i don't understand 'guns politics'.

i'm willing to concede that there is a possibility that the response to mass killing like this will include loosening restrictions on automatic weapons.

i'm willing to concede that there is a possibility that the response will include puppies with bayonets.

i'm just not willing to act like it is an item with any political will behind it, nor something that is really worth any priority right now. i'm also not willing to act like attempting to make it a priority right now wouldn't back fire horribly.

i'm sure you understand 'guns politics' in some fashion that would absolutely negate this, but you as of yet....haven't done so.

Okay so you have little idea of what you're speaking of then, which is what I said a few hours ago. Carry on.

I hope the gun fappers continue in the condescending, superior tone of subby's headline. It's especially important for them to keep informing people that they have no right to an opinion if they don't know the difference between a semiautomatic and an automatic, or a clip and a magazine, or some other such boring, Asperger's inspired bullshiat.Just keep it up, dumbasses. You'll win this way - really, you will.

Mikey1969:DoctorCal: CarnySaur: I'm surprised he didn't use a baseball analogy.

George Will and baseball? Also hilarious.

Home runs increase dramatically.

Lots of people say it's due to a 'lively' ball.

George says all those fools are falling prey to the tendancy of Americans to credit sudden changes to technological causes.

George's explanation? Aluminum bats. I couldn't make up derp like that.

Yeah, try using something that other people aren't claiming as well if you want to make him sound uninformed. There's a reason aluminum bats aren't legal in MLB, and why people are calling for them to be banned from college and high school.

You know why? Because the hut balls travel faster and farther with an aluminum bat.

I'm sure you're sticking with the "lively balls" theory for an entirely different reason than the fact that you think it's correct. I get it, typing 'lively balls' makes me LOL, too...

The point sorta went right over your head. He condescended to the 'lively balls' crowd about their attribution to a direct technological cause for the increase in homers. Then he attributed an indirect technological cause.

From those who are calling for the banning of all guns, I'd like to hear some real-world proposals for collecting everyone's firearms that won't result in violence. I'd also like to hear these ideas from military or law enforcement personnel who will be tasked with collecting these weapons, specifically what concerns they have, and whether they'll be willing to turn over their private weapons.

I'd like to know how people will convince gun manufacturers, distributors, and dealers to walk into another line of work without incident, and how we're going to spin those unemployment numbers. I want to know what will be done with all the guns that are collected, and who's going to keep them - can they be trusted? Can they guarantee 100% that no one will have access to them except 100% sane, stable individuals that abhor gun use?

I'd like to know how every square inch of the country is going to be searched, since many gun owners will hide weapons, whole and disassembled. Can we afford to hire that many people?

Guns aren't free - should owners be compensated, as one would expect in a case of imminent domain? Or is it "tough sh*t, cowboy"?

What do we do with those who refuse to turn their weapons over? Do we shoot them? How else would you effectively deal with someone who refuses to give up their weapon? How would you differentiate murdering a gun owner from the kind of violence you're terrified of him perpetrating, simply for owning one?

The reason I ask is that people that want all the guns gone are clearly passionate about it, and I don't want to just dismiss their notion as SERIOUSLY ONE OF THE DUMBEST IDEAS EVER.

George says all those fools are falling prey to the tendancy of Americans to credit sudden changes to technological causes.

George's explanation? Aluminum bats. I couldn't make up derp like that.

Yeah, try using something that other people aren't claiming as well if you want to make him sound uninformed. There's a reason aluminum bats aren't legal in MLB, and why people are calling for them to be banned from college and high school.

You know why? Because the hut balls travel faster and farther with an aluminum bat.

I'm sure you're sticking with the "lively balls" theory for an entirely different reason than the fact that you think it's correct. I get it, typing 'lively balls' makes me LOL, too...

The point sorta went right over your head. He condescended to the 'lively balls' crowd about their attribution to a direct technological cause for the increase in homers. Then he attributed an indirect technological cause.

I'm sorry, the whatever-to-English translation is broken, apparently. What is "indirect" about the aluminum bats causing the balls to travel farther?

I voted for Obama, but I'll never ever vote Democrat again if new gun laws come down. I can't believe they haven't learned.Shame on people here and shame on the media for exploiting this tragedy for your pet causes and ratings.

please:I voted for Obama, but I'll never ever vote Democrat again if new gun laws come down. I can't believe they haven't learned.

FFS, if you think the gubmint's gon' git yer gunz, please send me a money order for a special packet of what have been called by experts in their field as "magic beans." Don't worry, you'll still be free to shoot up any adult/child/animal/scary minority du jour that threatens your pweshus sensibilities all the livelong day.